Until recently, appeared to claim against the consumption of meat, the use of & # 39; natural skins and all forms of & # 39; physical abuse towards animals. Now, perhaps in & # 39; compliance with the wave of & # 39; inclusive language, the thing became thin: the posters & # 39; protest & # 39; environmental organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have their eyes towards the use of language, under the motto of & # 39;Set language against animal"
They concern immediately popular expressions such as "kill two birds with & # 39; one stone"Or"take the bull by the antlers"- According to that organization spread on soċjali- networks, without any other words to say in Spanish do not have alluded to living, but in English b & # 39; any way "Purple" or "humiliated" certain species & # 39; animals. For example, the phrase "bring home the bacon"(" Who brings home the bacon "), comparable, in the general sense plan, the classic" stop-the-pot '.
However, The Castilian has other typical phrases, b & # 39; transitory character, may also be under the lens, Since they relate to animals, b & # 39; negative connotations. For example, "each pig takes his San Martin"Or"the dog died, the anger passed"
The interesting is that, in his campaign, PETA proposes alternative phrases that can hold the meaning of the original, but with & # 39; expression, f & # 39; eyes that NGO, more acceptable.
for "kill two birds with & # 39; one stone"Suggerixxi"two birds feeding at SCON"…
… and the classic "tomar the bull horn"Offer"pick the flower from thorns"
For Santiago Kalinowski, director of the Research Department of Linguistics and linguistic Academia Argentina de Letras, "when a group, no matter how small, says seems offensive to some expression, we take that statement seriously"
The phenomenon is complex, but very common in the use of language. "It happens the animals are lexicalised proverbs, which means that their meaning crystallized. That is why the person who excludes these phrases is not really thinking about a bird or animal, "explained Kalinowski, and added:" The problem is that the term is present, ie, even if the meaning crystallized, the -Customized not disappear. "
Why address this concern, which for many are extremists? According to the expert, "we have seen this many times … for example, b & # 39; similar expressions "I worked like black", Phrase m & # 39; & # 39 ;, still sounds but that was widely used and in just start using it only to comment"
"The use of & # 39; "black ", F & # 39; that case, was lexicalised, but in & # 39; some time it was understood that it was offensive, Because it has the notion that some people are only able to perform rudimentary work, physically difficult, off-intellectual work, destined for other ethnic groups ", said Kalinowski.
F & # 39; that line, in his post on Twitter, PETA said "words are important and, as our understanding of social justice evolve, our language evolves along with it". And in & # 39; that understanding, the postulated against "speciesism" – the notion that animal species are inferior to humans – is clear.
As Kalinowski concluded, "modification of the language does not change the reality, ie by not using sexist expressions automatically there is no sexism. However, although the reality creates language, to have an impact on reality, we niffiguraw speeches, say, use the language. And we have the right to stop speeches like to eventually have an impact on others and the reality. M & # 39; have tissottovalutaha. "